/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>619622

I went to SSPX mass a couple of times. Then they moved the location and that's too far away for me. Also, I'm kinda bothered by the fact their whole operation is illegal ie the fact I went to their mass makes me disobedient to my bishop.

I’m going to a Tridentine parish: not sedevacantist, nor SSPX, but I understand why many traditionalists are opting for them. I still hold to the RCC for I do believe soon there will be a return to form, after this lukewarm and often dangerous (out not of malice but naivety) pope.

>>619622

I'm in this weird borderline position where my parish is not an official one and the bishop despises us yet are in full communion.

Pretty much an Independent Fundamental Catholic Church.

>>619631

>SSPX also submit to the pope

They definitely accept his authority as true, but willfully entering into schism, blatantly and proudly disrespecting the Magisterium, and scandalising people to do the same show very clearly that they don't live up to what they believe.

>>619622

I'm a Catholic with traditional values.

>>619622

I go to an FSSP church because, unlike the SSPX, they're traditional and don't cherrypick what to believe out of what the pope infallibly declares.

>>619634

>blatantly and proudly disrespecting the Magisterium,

The teachings of the Popes since v2 contradicts those of the Popes before.

>>619624

>Also, I'm kinda bothered by the fact their whole operation is illegal ie the fact I went to their mass makes me disobedient to my bishop.

They argue that they have 'supplied jurisdiction because of the crisis in the church and therefore justified and even necessary to receive the sacraments from them. Still on the fence about them.

>>619644

I was going to reply but those were perfect responses

>>619641

FSSP is in full communion with Rome, too.

>>619644

>The teachings of the Popes since v2 contradicts those of the Popes before.

They don't, although this may seem to be the case if you don't know enough about them. But it's not even the disagreement with the Church in her teaching authority that is the crux of the matter, it's the accompanying complete disrespect and lack of trust and obedience that the Church protected by God ought to receive.

>>619700

Pope Jp2 allowed communion for christians not in communion with rome.

>>619714

And that's not even the worse thing he did. He claimed you can be saved through the efforts of protesant church's

>>619717

Ah so you're God and can decide who does and who doesn't eh ? Humble yourself man, it's pathetic. Everyone can receive salvation, because with God, nothing is impossible. I'm sure you're aware of that. And that includes people in honest error that still are trying to go the way of Christ - even without knowing it or without doing the "full thing", because they honestly believe their way is 'the' way.

Salvation is not for members of some kind of secret club. Christ died for 'all. And "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" also doesn't mean that if you're not in the Church, you won't receive salvation. It means that all Grace is poured through the Church. Or why would you think do we pray for non-Christians and Christians in troubles alike ? For every single human ? Because that's what it means to be Catholic. Not to be a member of a cool club so you can label yourself and look with pride on the rest of humanity.

>>619622

radtrads are one of the reasons the flock is shrinking by the day

>>619723

I have some problems with it as well. Of course I agree God can save anyone He wants, but from my understanding it would mean protestants are not saved because of them being protestant, but despite of it. Otherwise, seems like Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus would mean nothing.

>>619700

What's the difference between SSPX and sedevacantists?

I've read a little about sedes inconclusively. I'll stay in the flock.

>>619728

Sedevacantists openly deny authority of the current and some of the previous popes and claim that chair of Peter is vacant.

>>619727

To say someone will or will not be saved is the sin of presumption. It's not just a grave sin (for anyone, not only Catholics), it is a sin against the Holy Spirit. And as anyone that read that Gospels should know, this is an eternal sin. Therefore Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus cannot mean that no one that is not a Catholic (in communion with Rome) will not be saved. Because if that was the case, Eastern Orthodoxy's Sacraments wouldn't be considered valid (despite illicit for us to receive).

It simply means that all Grace is poured through the one holy Catholic Church that redeems people. However, it doesn't mean that anyone has a free pass. For example people like SSPX (and I'll assume here the "clergy", not the laity so much) that are fully in the know of what they are lacking and why they are lacking it and the gravity of all this have to repent. Likewise do we want every single human being on the planet to be a Catholic, obviously. That is why we're proselytizing. But we also have to be realistic - especially when it comes to people of different religions that simply can not accept the Christ Jesus for whichever reason. That's why we're doing "ecumenism" also with different religions, not only within the "Christian realm". Because Christ gave every single Christian the mission of working for the good of humanity through love and compassion and through teaching everyone, even if the process takes milennia - not by declaring a cool secret club and then dwelling in there.

>18And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth 19 Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: 20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

*Mt 28:18-20

>>619733

Did I say that right ? We can't say that everyone who is not in the Church will not be saved. Now it's right I think

>>619717

Post a direct quote then.

>>619736

I don't feel you answered me at all.

Non-catholics (not in communion in Rome) can be saved, but they are saved despite being non-catholics, not because of being non-catholics - is that a correct understanding?

If yes, then we have anon 45f372 claiming John Paul II said you can be saved through the efforts of protestant churches and that is contradicting the above.

oh and of course I would like to see that too >>619762

>>619764

>>>Salvation in Christ Is Offered to All

>>>The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation. For this reason the Council, after affirming the centrality of the Paschal Mystery, went on to declare that "this applies not only to Christians but to all people of good will in whose hearts grace is secretly at work. Since Christ died for everyone, and since the ultimate calling of each of us comes from God and is therefore a universal one, we are obliged to hold that the Holy Spirit offers everyone the possibility of sharing in this Paschal Mystery in a manner known to God."19

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_07121990_redemptoris-missio.html pt. 10

This in no way contradicts Church teaching

>>619767

And it's what I have been talking about. Obviously that anon is (I don't imply malicious intent) spreading hearsay rather than anything - or didn't understand it correctly. Yes, they can receive salvation 'despite' being non-Catholic, not because of.

>>619769

okay, thanks for the answer

>>619622

If you substituted one of those S's for a P you could make the word Priest :DDD

>>619859

Don't go to SSPX, go to FSSP or the most traditional normie church you can find.

The less liturgical abuses, the better.

>>619859

Did you make that silly image for that post?

>>619726

No, the flock is shrinking due to poor catechism by modernist NO churches

I'm from saint peter's fraternity, formed by the ones that left the SSPX before the "schism".

Sede are traitors and often not Christians btw.

>>619633

Tell me more

>>619723

>outside of the church there is no salvation doesn't mean if you're not in the church you won't receive salvation

It literally does mean that. You can only receive salvation if you are in the church. This is dogma.

Your post is very uncharitable to the other poster, putting words in his mouth and accusing. I find often you "liberal" catholics are the much more aggressive and hateful side of the polarity always aggressively attacking and slandering any whiff of things pre v2.

>>619728

The basic difference is this:

>SSPX and Sede both reject V2 and NO heresies

>SSPX still recognize the pope even if he's a shit

>Sedes don't.

>SSPX is not in schism, the Sedes are.

Some other things:

>SSPX won't allow Sede priests

>SSPX stick to the missal of 1962, Sedes think it's too modernist because Pope John XXIII touched the liturgy

>>620161

Exactly. There is nothing wrong with people preferring the extraordinary form of the mass and keeping the few particular traditions that go with it. Being diehard "TLM or bust" is heretical and that SSPX are schismatics, that's not not even up for discussion.

People seem to forget that it's not about personal taste - not even how you receive the Eucharist. The center of everything is Christ and celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist. In German, Mass means Gottesdienst, i.e., duty or service we owe God. That's what it is. The form is irrelevant. Is the Eucharist valid and validly celebrated and consecrated ? Then no one has a say. And anyone accusing the Church post-V2 to be modernistic is putting themselves above the whole magisterium and God Himself. Again, Christ promised that the gates of hell shall never prevail by divine intervention. If you believe this happened and therefore you fractured little 10k people """church""" is the one true Church then you are spitting on the Gospel.

>>620197

>>SSPX still recognize the pope even if he's a shit

You are not to decide this and neither are they. They are schismatics and in no way better than sede protestants - they just delude themselves and that's it.

>>619723

>this is your mind on false ecumenism.

You pray for non-Catholics to become Catholic you pleb, you're borderline anathematizing yourself. The efforts outside the Church cannot lead to Salvation.

>>620200

>You are not to decide this and neither are they. Prove they're schismatics pleb.

>>619733

Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus refers the Catholic church that all are incorporated into by baptism or baptism of desire. Thus all baptised are part of the church however those who refuse God's grace working in them that directs them towards the sacraments mortally sin and lose justification. Justification thus entails: valid confirmation, valid confession and valid Eucharist. Protestants don't have that thus they have separated themselves from God and will go to hell unless they are reconciled to the church that is Christ. Eastern, orientals and Assyrians have valid sacraments thus can achieve salvation as long as they don't commit the mortal sin of schism in their hearts. Most I imagine don't as they probably don't know or care about the schism. It is those who protest and become or stay Eastern because of desire to schism with Rome who remain in mortal sin thus will not achieve salvation unless they repent.

From Ignatius of Antioch: the catholic church exists with each bishop and within the Eucharist.

“Fight this day the battle of the Lord, together with the holy angels, as already thou hast fought the leader of the proud angels, Lucifer, and his apostate host, who were powerless to resist thee, nor was there place for them any longer in Heaven. That cruel, ancient serpent, who is called the devil or Satan who seduces the whole world, was cast into the abyss with his angels. Behold, this primeval enemy and slayer of men has taken courage. Transformed into an angel of light, he wanders about with all the multitude of wicked spirits, invading the earth in order to blot out the name of God and of His Christ, to seize upon, slay and cast into eternal perdition souls destined for the crown of eternal glory. This wicked dragon pours out, as a most impure flood, the venom of his malice on men of depraved mind and corrupt heart, the spirit of lying, of impiety, of blasphemy, and the pestilent breath of impurity, and of every vice and iniquity.

These most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions. IN THE HOLY PLACE ITSELF, where the SEE OF HOLY PETER AND THE CHAIR OF TRUTH has been set up as the light of the world, THEY HAVE RAISED THE THRONE OF THEIR ABOMINABLE IMPIETY, with the iniquitous design that WHEN THE PASTOR HAS BEEN STRUCK, THE SHEEP MAY BE SCATTERED.

Arise then, O invincible Prince, bring help against the attacks of the lost spirits to the people of God, and give them the victory. They venerate thee as their protector and patron; in thee holy Church glories as her defense against the malicious power of hell; to thee has God entrusted the souls of men to be established in heavenly beatitude. Oh, pray to the God of peace that He may put Satan under our feet, so far conquered that he may no longer be able to hold men in captivity and harm the Church. Offer our prayers in the sight of the Most High, so that they may quickly find mercy in the sight of the Lord; and vanquishing the dragon, the ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, do thou again make him captive in the abyss, that he may no longer seduce the nations. Amen." (St. Michael prayer, Pope Leo XIII)

francisquotes.com

>>619631

>protestants in denial

Protestants claim that there isn't a sede.

>>619626

>out not of malice but naivety

How can the supreme authority in moral teaching be naive regarding moral teaching? This would mean that the hierarchy of the Church means nothing.

“But regarding the matter and form in the conferring of every order, by Our same supreme apostolic authority We decree and establish the following: … In the ordination of priests, the matter is the first imposition of the bishop’s hands which is done in silence… But the form [of Ordination] consists of the words of the preface of which the following are ESSENTIAL and so REQUIRED for validity:

“Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood; renew the spirit of holiness within them, so that (ut) they may hold from You, O God, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.” (Pope Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947)

Here is the form of the New Rite of Ordination of Priests:

“Grant, we beseech You, Almighty Father, to these Your servants, the dignity of the Priesthood; renew within them the spirit of holiness. May they hold from You, the office of the second rank in Your service and by the example of their behavior afford a pattern of holy living.”

"A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction." (St. Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal and Doctor of the Church, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

"This principle is most certain. The non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan himself admits (ib. c. 26). The reason for this is that he cannot be head of what he is not a member; now he who is not a Christian is not a member of the

Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as is clearly taught by St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2), St. Athanasius (Scr. 2 cont. Arian.), St. Augustine (lib. De great. Christ. Cap. 20), St. Jerome (contra Lucifer.) and others; therefore the

manifest heretic cannot be Pope." (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

"Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from is dignity and out of the Church…" (St. Francis De Sales (17th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy, pp. 305-306)

"In the case in which the pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off. A pope who would be separated from the Church by heresy, therefore, would by that very fact itself cease to be head of the Church. He could not be a heretic and remain pope, because, since he is outside of the Church, he cannot possess the keys of the Church." (St. Antoninus, 1459 [Summa Theologica, cited in Actes de Vatican I. V. Frond pub ])

francisquotes(.)com

>>620248

The website you're quoting is shit in its crystalline form. Despite telling complete bullshit comparing apples to pears, and showing that it was made by an incredibly uneducated individual or group, they don't even possess the integrity of publishing their identities for the sake of being called out. That is pure cowardice and can safely be dismissed as attempt to scandalize the Pope and therefore the Church - and therefore Christ.

Sedevacantists should just begome Ordodogs already, instead of continuing to pretend that they're Catholic.

>>620270

They should repent and stop being homos. Either you are with the Church, and therefore the Pope, or you're a protestant. It's that easy

>>620265

I'm quoting Saints and I'm not defending any website or particular group.

Didn't those Saints said what I quoted? The St. Michael prayer by Pope Leo XIII is fake? Francis didnt said the things listed in "francisquotes(.)com"? You could tell me where the errors are, if you think that what I posted is incorrect. Simply "safely dismissing it" is what looks cowardice to me.

>>620276

That's the American spirit.

>I tell people utter bullshit but it's your task to disprove it

kek'd @ your life mate

Saints aren't infalliable. So is not any document any Pope has ever published. But that's not even the point. The point is that you, a random brainlet, as well as so many others and also the person(s) that runs this website that are obviously not educated on matters of Dogma and Canon Law - and prolly not even the whole of the Catechism - have no authority nor right to declare the Pope a heretic. By whose standards do you call him out explicitly ? On matters of bible verses ? There are armies of expositors of the bible that see no problem. On matters of Canon Law ? There are armies of 'lawyers' that have no objections. On matters of tradition ? Well, there are armies of bishops and cardinals that have no objections. So what's left ? The thing that's left is that you hold yourself(/-ves) in the highest regards through utter pride on matters that you have neither education nor authority on - higher than the magisterium and its head themselves.

Furthermore is this prayer not any proof for anything nor does it say anything about any particular situation. It's a prayer and that's it. Also, this prayer is part of the greater exorcism of the Rituale Romanum. You pleb are not supposed to say it as you have no authority to do so. That is why there's a shorter laity-version of it that is entirely enough for us.

And that's all I'm going to say to you. Dealing with the audacity of self-proclaimed scholars on a vietnamese blanket knitting board becomes more tedious by the hour.

>>620287

Wouldnt someone that really cared about the Church treat me like a troubled soul in error thats seeking the Truth and therefore try to educate me, instead, of going on an ugly and useless rant with ugly language about how I'm uneducated and prideful? If you think that defending the honor of the Church is "tedious" then you really do not belong here. If you really aims to bring people to the Truth then you should really change your attitude.

>you are obviously not educated on matters of Dogma and Canon Law - and prolly not even the whole of the Catechism

Well, I know that the Catechism says that infidels, jews and heretics are not fit to teach a child, "since their thoughts and efforts are continually employed in darkening by falsehood the true faith and in subverting all Christian piety" (p. 117). And Francis says the exact opposite, as in "I do not care that the education of a child is given by Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and Jews. I am concerned that a child is educated and not be hungry. In this I think we have to agree."

>have no authority nor right to declare the Pope a heretic

Theres no need for me to "declare" a person a heretic when such person commits heresy. The Church already did. For example, by saying that you respect atheists and that their lifes are not condemned, while the Church says "If any one deny the one true God, Creator and Lord of all things visible and invisible, let him be anathema", and the Bible says "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse". Such person have cut himself from the Body of Christ.

Or saying that "the muslisms together with us adore the one, merciful God, who will judge humanity on the last day", while the Bible says that whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.

Theres no need for me to "declare" a person a heretic when such person commits heresy. The Church already did. And as multiple saints said, "the non-Christian (heretic) cannot in any way be Pope."

>there are armies of expositors of the bible that see no problem, there are armies of 'lawyers' that have no objections

There are armies of demons in Hell also, and this fact doesnt make them right.

>nor does it say anything about any particular situation

It speaks of a particular situation where the most crafty enemies have filled and inebriated with gall and bitterness the Church, the spouse of the immaculate Lamb, and have laid impious hands on her most sacred possessions.

It speaks of a particular situation where in the Holy Place itself, where the see of Holy Peter and the Chair of Truth has been set up as the light of the world, they have raised the throne of their abominable impiety, with the iniquitous design that when the pastor has been struck, the sheep may be scattered.

>and that's all I'm going to say to you

I doubt it.

>>620192

I told it a few times already on here.

About 20 years ago some kind of (apparently rather well-known) Jesuit priest, professor of philosophy and historian bought an old farm and rebuild it into a chapel for the Tridentine mass.

Of course this was more than a decade before papa Ben brought us Summorum Pontificum, so they met with a lot of resistance.

Luckily because of his honored position and historian, nationalist and professor he had his connections.

The chapel was recognized by the local bishop, consecrated and everything.

However, they still met with a lot of resistance, even now the mainstream priests call us an SSPX den.

Nobody in the bishopric is very fond of us since we are…well, we're actually catholic.

Sadly the chapel has its own problems; the governing body is a joke, the bishopric loathes us, and our sponsors are running thin.

Heck, the governing body consists of 7 people of which at least 3 people never go to our mass, and most don't even go to the state-mandatory meetings (it's brought under a NGO).

We do not have one priest, instead we got different priests (some not even from our country) that celebrate mass.

The bishop won't give us either a priest nor any form of subsidies.

I'm afraid that the parish will be gone in a decade or two if this keeps going like this.

We're growing, but the site is a big mess, we're STILL unknown and they don't want to change anything about it either.

At this rate the chapel will just implode.

>>620200

>The form is irrelevant.

>They are schismatics and in no way better than sede protestants - they just delude themselves and that's it.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

>>620865

Thanks m8, appreciated!

>>620037

no i post on sp a lot

What happens if there's an arch-conservative/traditionalist pope? Are sedes waiting for a good pope and an end to what they see as heresies or are they simply waiting for the return of Christ?

>>622169

>arch-conservative/traditionalist pope

This is unlikely to happen since the College of Cardinals is packed with ultra-liberals and unironic liberation theologians, and Pope Francis is continuing to promote and install liberal cardinals.

John Paul II wasn't really a conservative per se (supported dual covenant theology, did nothing to promote TLM/Tridentine, basically ignored sodomite priests) and neither was Benedict XVI (again made only baby steps on the extraordinary form, and made little progress on reform-of-reform). There is unlikely ever to be a Pius XII-style Pope ever again, simply because Liberals Popes will appoint Liberal Cardinals and those Cardinals will pick Liberal popes.

>>622169

>>622184

It's only going to get worse.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/04/pope-planning-retire-say-allies-hes-appointed-enough-liberal-cardinals/>>622169

>>623980

As a Catholic who would never go sedevacantist or change denomination, this makes me incredibly sad…

What is left for us to do, I cannot say.

>>623986

I just discovered this board and I love it but unfortunately I'm really on the fence for sedevacantism.

Has there been a thread for debating it recently? I'm thinking of starting one this weekend. (I saw the sspx one, but I want a more specific topic)

>>624007

I became Catholic already knowing the many flaws and misteps of the Church, its pipes and cardinals; it is indeed a harlot, but I do believe God still loves her and we, as her children, should love her whilst never denying its issues.

I came to Him through despair and I'll always have to fight this dark gloominess encircling my heart.

>>624012

what year did you become Catholic?

>>624012

>pipes

Meant popes…thanks, autocorrect!

The Roman Catholic Plumbers…

>>624017

During the early 2010s

>>624012

>it is indeed a harlot, but I do believe God still loves her

that St. Augustine reference is fake.

t.orthodox

>>624041

I do believe that, didn't even know there was a fake quote…

>>624007

>Has there been a thread for debating it recently?

No not recently we haven't had one in a long time

>>619730

In that regard, they share roughly the same opinion of the chair of Peter that the Orthodox have, i.e. the authority of any Patriarch depends upon their adherence to "right practice" and their communion with the larger group of Patriarchs who adhere to it.

Once a Roman's belief in "papal supremacy" has been shaken, they are presented with a choice, whether they realize it or not.

Either they can through out the entirety of their belief in Apostolic succession and become "protestant," or …

They can recognize that the See of Rome the first Chair of Peter was ANTIOCH and it is certainly not and never has been vacant is vacant and has been out of communion for centuries, and can come home to the Orthodox belief which they held historically for more than half their existence.

>>625112

I'm going to expand on this, and apologies for my horrific typing and typos above and probably to follow as well.

Alright, aside from various theological differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, including but not limited to purgatory, the filioque, delayed Chrismation/Communion of children after Baptism, etc., one of the major differences is the role of the Patriarch of Rome aka the Pope.

In Orthodox thought, each and every Patriarch is equal in authority, and has such only so long as they adhere to "right practice" literally "Orthodoxy" and stay in the communion of others who do so. This requirement is in addition to having the Apostolic succession. When several Orthodox bishops assented to the filioque in order to get military assistance against the Saracens, when they returned to Byzantium they were dragged through the streets behind horses for their heresy.

In Roman Catholic thought, the Pope has the only authority and has the ability to retroactively change doctrine and practice whenever he wishes, and such are not viewed as "changes" but as "new revelations." On paper, according to the RCC, the Pope could speak ex cathedra and pronounce significant heresies to now be "true" and then then they would be "true" by virtue of the Pope's ex cathedra announcement.

When the Sedevacantist takes the opinion that the Pope's validity depends upon the Pope's adherence to "right practice," they break with the accepted RCC dogma. They are no longer Roman Catholic, by virtue of their belief that the Pope's authority has any reliance on the Pope's fidelity to accepted historical dogma.

In other words, they take an essential ORTHODOX view of what defines an authoritative Patriarchate; not only Apostolic succession, but also "right practice." Come home to Orthodoxy.

>>625116

Not only not an argument, not even a good meme. Try harder next time, Schlomo.

>>625182

Except texts being corrupt or unknown to the other side was a big problem at Florence(the greeks laughed their asses off when the latin delegation brought forth "the original text" of the procedings of some ecumenical council… in latin).

And well, people generally talking past each other("the silence that was heard around the world" and all that).

>>625192

>Except texts being corrupt or unknown to the other side was a big problem at Florence(the greeks laughed their asses off when the latin delegation brought forth "the original text" of the procedings of some ecumenical council… in latin).

Greeks on Florence were prideful and foolish. It basically went like this:

>Catholics who knew greeks: here have latin fathers translated for you

>Greeks who knew no latin: it's forged

>C: And what make you think that?

>G: It says Filioque is right and it couldn't be

>C: But it's right here in both West and East…

>G: It's forged. It say that filoque is right.

Listen to your Mark fo Ephesus

"The words of the western Fathers and Doctors, which attribute to the Son the cause of the Spirit, I never recognize (for they have never been translated into our tongue nor approved by the Oecumenical Councils) nor do I admit them, presuming that they are corrupt and interpolated…'

Notice how Mark of Ephesus, despite exhaustive Latin explanations, still twists Filioque into a doctrine making the Son a "cause" of the Spirit. His argument that the Western Church intentionally distorted, indeed forged, the entire Latin corpus of patristic literature (i.e., literally thousands of antique manuscripts) is of course blatantly ridiculous.

I'm going to go to a SSPX chapel this Sunday. Very small but comfy looking.

>>625613

If filioque is right, why was it not included in the original creed in either 325 or 381?

>>633117

Same reason why chalcedonian definition was not part of orginal creed. To quote Angelic Doctor:

In every council of the Church a symbol of faith has been drawn up to meet some prevalent error condemned in the council at that time. Hence subsequent councils are not to be described as making a new symbol of faith; but what was implicitly contained in the first symbol was explained by some addition directed against rising heresies. Hence in the decision of the council of Chalcedon it is declared that those who were congregated together in the council of Constantinople, handed down the doctrine about the Holy Ghost, not implying that there was anything wanting in the doctrine of their predecessors who had gathered together at Nicaea, but explaining what those fathers had understood of the matter. Therefore, because at the time of the ancient councils the error of those who said that the Holy Ghost did not proceed from the Son had not arisen, it was not necessary to make any explicit declaration on that point; whereas, later on, when certain errors rose up, another council [Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus] assembled in the west, the matter was explicitly defined by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, by whose authority also the ancient councils were summoned and confirmed. Nevertheless the truth was contained implicitly in the belief that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father.